A good start to attract attention to baseball games before the All-Star break.

Florida really lucks out this year, and all other years if this natural rivalries scheduling continues. They play 6 vs. Tampa while the Mets have 6 against the Yankees. And I doubt we'll be seeing Pedro this weekend.

Baltimore gets the ALs most generous offering of Phily, Cin, Hou, Pit, and Col for 15 games. They've gotta make the postseason with all that help.

Despite the O's generous schedule, is anybody else ready to scrap interleague play once and for all?

I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt. - Pat Sajak

Originally posted by GrimisDespite the O's generous schedule, is anybody else ready to scrap interleague play once and for all?

As a fellow O's fan, I'm ready to get rid of it. It was novel for a while, the first time your team gets to play each National League team, but now it has run its course. People often make the argument, "Well, baseball is the only sport where teams don't play teams from the other league/conference." I like that because I think that it makes baseball and the World Series all the more special.

However, if they do keep interleague play, which I assume they will, they nee to switch the O's natural rival to Washington. I'm still stumped about why they didn't do that this year.

Originally posted by BigSteveI'm still stumped about why they didn't do that this year.

The schedule was already made for the "Expos"/Blue Jays series before the team officially moved.

Originally posted by BullittIt doesn't hurt anyone and makes for a few weeks of rivalry-induced excitement during somewhat slow times of the baseball year.

Actually, it does hurt from the perspective of teams not playing a uniform schedule.

As far as rivalries go, yes I agree that Yankees/Mets and Angels/Dodgers are intriguing this year, but does anybody really care about the epic Devil Rays/Pirates, Rockies/Tigers, or Dimaondbacks/Royals(who play each other EVERY year?)

I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt. - Pat Sajak

Originally posted by GrimisAs far as rivalries go, yes I agree that Yankees/Mets and Angels/Dodgers are intriguing this year, but does anybody really care about the epic Devil Rays/Pirates, Rockies/Tigers, or Dimaondbacks/Royals(who play each other EVERY year?)

No more than I care about the epic Pirates/Rockies, Royals/Devil Rays or Rangers/Indians matchups. But I can tell you that outside of September games against division rivals there's no games I get more excited for than the 6 White Sox/Cubs games every year. Unless you're going to make it so that every team plays every team in their league the same amount of times, I can't be bothered by the schedule discrepancy. After all, is it fair that Baltimore due to being in a nightmare division gets 19 against Boston and New York, while Minnesota gets 19 against Kansas City and Detroit? To me the good matchups that come out of interleague play justify it, and really, if you don't like boring pairings, then about 75% of the MLB schedule is going to be a loss for you on a yearly basis.

I don't think that boring pairings are bad, just not a reason to justify interleague play.

O's playing 19 games against the Yankees and Boston? Hell, we have a better record against the Yankees than Kansas City right now. But yes, the 19 games interdivision are not fair for the purposes of the wildcard.

I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt. - Pat Sajak

Well, if you want a balanced schedule, then either it's no interleague or it's all interleague. There's no middle ground. And given the way that interleague games seem to be the best sellers (example: the Brewers knew that they were going to sell-out their games against the Cubs and the Yankees, so they raised prices for those games), I think we know which one the people in charge would go for.

Hint: Move a team from the NL Central to the AL West (Houston or St. Louis), or whatever is necessary to have 5 teams per division. Teams would play 13 games against division opponents, 5 games against in-league opponents, and 4 games against intra-league opponents.

NOTE: The above post makes no sense. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Originally posted by Mr. Boffo Hint: Move a team from the NL Central to the AL West (Houston or St. Louis), or whatever is necessary to have 5 teams per division. Teams would play 13 games against division opponents, 5 games against in-league opponents, and 4 games against intra-league opponents.

That wouldn't work. Under that scenario, there would be fifteen teams per league which means that the only scenario would be to have an interleague series going at all times (otherwise one team in each league would be idle for three or four days at a time), and I think that MLB likes having the interleague games concentrated in one timespan.

When MLB introduced the Wild Card, why did they also move from two divisions per league to three per league and realign? If you really want to get rid of the schedule factor, you could easily got to two seven (or eight) team divisions in each league and give all four second place winners a Wild Card to go with the four division winners rather than three division winners and a single wild card.

Originally posted by Mr. BoffoAnd given the way that interleague games seem to be the best sellers (example: the Brewers knew that they were going to sell-out their games against the Cubs and the Yankees, so they raised prices for those games), I think we know which one the people in charge would go for.

Except that the Cubs and Brewers are now in the same league.

I don't really care one way or the other for interleague. If each team had a natural rival, it would work better than it does. However, pointing out one series against another as being more or less pointless is a pretty tough act.

Also, teams without natural rivals should pick one. So, for Seattle/Colorado (for instance), each team should have players cut a heel-style promo running down the other team's fans, city, etc. Then, Colorado's starter could start the game by brushing back Ichiro and jawing at the bench. Now, you've got a nice rivalry.

"The translation is literally. "Your City. Your Equipment." So I guess this means that you can use this channel as your equipment to take over the city. Great."

-Americans for Legal Immigration (a group whose members think that Channel 62 in LA is using a billboard to advertise that they're available to help attack the U.S. and claim it for Mexico.)

Originally posted by Mr. BoffoWell, if you want a balanced schedule, then either it's no interleague or it's all interleague. There's no middle ground. And given the way that interleague games seem to be the best sellers (example: the Brewers knew that they were going to sell-out their games against the Cubs and the Yankees, so they raised prices for those games), I think we know which one the people in charge would go for.

Hint: Move a team from the NL Central to the AL West (Houston or St. Louis), or whatever is necessary to have 5 teams per division. Teams would play 13 games against division opponents, 5 games against in-league opponents, and 4 games against intra-league opponents.

Those 2 teams have been in the NL for a long time (especially the Cards) so that move won't happen for either. If a team is going to be moved from the NL to the AL, it would probably be Colorado or Arizona. My choice would be Colorado, if only for the fun of having them play with a DH and watching even more balls go flying around Coors Field.

I don't remember the reason for the Brewer's Yankee hate from 81, what happened again?

Also I can see the football rivalry between the cheese-heads and the purple-people, but not for baseball. Why the heat between the Brew Crew and Killebrew?

To expand on my point of how the O's lucked out here. They are hosting Colorado and Houston. 2 teams with a combined 4-31 road record. They are hosting the last place Phillies. They are at Pit where the Pirates are just 5-12 at home. They go to Cinci which gives up the most homers. Their only challenge could be Atlanta. Their opponent's Winning Percentage is only .421. The Yankees opponent's are .516.

Another team getting screwed is the Dodgers with 6 against the Angels and 3 vs. CWS. Their opp. WP = .538. The Giants get 6 vs. Oak and 3 vs. Cle. Their opp. WP = .434. I can only see only one LA team making the playoffs and it's not the Dodgers.

The Cards get KC, Tampa, Tor.(Opp WP = .450) The Cubs have the toughest shedule of all with 6 vs. the White Sox, Bos, Tor, NYY. (Opp WP = .603). not that the Cubs were going to win the division anyway, but this sure closes the door on that one.

I'm not saying to get rid of interleague, just to tone it down. The NFL sets it up so the worst teams from the previous year have the easiest schedule, they seem to do a better scheduling job. There are 5 teams in the AL East and 5 in the NL East. Howabout everyone playing everyone else? sounds fair enough.

Originally posted by Mr. BoffoWell, if you want a balanced schedule, then either it's no interleague or it's all interleague. There's no middle ground. And given the way that interleague games seem to be the best sellers (example: the Brewers knew that they were going to sell-out their games against the Cubs and the Yankees, so they raised prices for those games), I think we know which one the people in charge would go for.

Hint: Move a team from the NL Central to the AL West (Houston or St. Louis), or whatever is necessary to have 5 teams per division. Teams would play 13 games against division opponents, 5 games against in-league opponents, and 4 games against intra-league opponents.

Those 2 teams have been in the NL for a long time (especially the Cards) so that move won't happen for either.

If there was a plan to move the Cardinals to the Junior Circuit, the people of St. Louis --- literally...and I do mean literally --- would rip the Arch down and shove all 630 feet of it up Bud Selig's ass until he sang showtunes and cancelled the move. Nuclear war between El Salvador and the Moon People has a better chance of happening than the Redbirds switching leagues.

But the AL can have Houston if they want.

Interleague Play doesn't irk me (especially if the Cards go 11-1 again as they did last year,) though you could dial it back a bit. Rivals don't need two series against each other; if the Cubs and ChiSox could play one exhibition game against other each year and nothing more, then they can alternate hosting the three-game championship season series rather than playing six each year. Other than that, only a couple other series are needed; five or so a year is over doing it.

As far as the unbalanced schedule goes, I'll take only six games against NL East opponents to play divisional foes eighteen times, especially when you need those games to gain ground. The Wild Card should always be secondary to the divison title; worry about your out-of-division league opponents come Labor Day. No, I don't say this because the Cards have clinched the Central already. That's just a bonus.

Originally posted by Mr. BoffoWell, if you want a balanced schedule, then either it's no inter league or it's all inter league. There's no middle ground.

Mr. Boffo's point is true; but there is a way to have no inter league games and yet still have the exciting rivalry games between local teams (i.e. Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, etc.). MLB could do a complete re-alignment, creating four separate leagues where each team played only teams inside its own league during the regular season. Thus you would not only keep the local team rivalries but also intensify them. Just consider the Yanks/Mets/Red Sox in the East, the Cubs/White Sox/Brewers in the Central, and the Dodgers/Angles/Padres in the West (for example) playing each other twenty-two times a year (eleven home/eleven away) AND battling against each other for their respective league championship. In addition:

Originally posted by Big StevePeople often make the argument, "Well, baseball is the only sport where teams don't play teams from the other league/conference." I like that because I think that it makes baseball and the World Series all the more special.

You could again go back to teams meeting in the post season and the World Series that had not played against each other during the regular season.

Thirty two teams (the current thirty plus two expansion teams) in four leagues playing a 154 game schedule comprised of twenty-two games against each league opponent. Of course, as much as I love this idea, I accept that fact that it's not perfect. I also accept the fact that I have a better chance of seeing world peace in my lifetime than of seeing the owners agreeing to a plan such as this. Keeping in mind that, over thirty years later, the owners still can't be of one mind when it comes to the DH, it could take centuries for the owners to just consider such a re-alignment. Probably the only scenario I could imagine whereby the owners would adopt a plan such as the one above would be if a major TV network offered to triple their broadcast fees payment in exchange for such a re-alignment. But, despite the odds, there you have one man's dream of how MLB could vastly improve its product by keeping the exciting regional rivalry games and making the World Series special again.

Originally posted by Mr. BoffoWell, if you want a balanced schedule, then either it's no inter league or it's all inter league. There's no middle ground.

Mr. Boffo's point is true; but there is a way to have no inter league games and yet still have the exciting rivalry games between local teams (i.e. Yankees/Mets, Cubs/White Sox, etc.). MLB could do a complete re-alignment, creating four separate leagues where each team played only teams inside its own league during the regular season. Thus you would not only keep the local team rivalries but also intensify them. Just consider the Yanks/Mets/Red Sox in the East, the Cubs/White Sox/Brewers in the Central, and the Dodgers/Angles/Padres in the West (for example) playing each other twenty-two times a year (eleven home/eleven away) AND battling against each other for their respective league championship. In addition:

Originally posted by Big StevePeople often make the argument, "Well, baseball is the only sport where teams don't play teams from the other league/conference." I like that because I think that it makes baseball and the World Series all the more special.

You could again go back to teams meeting in the post season and the World Series that had not played against each other during the regular season.

Thirty two teams (the current thirty plus two expansion teams) in four leagues playing a 154 game schedule comprised of twenty-two games against each league opponent. Of course, as much as I love this idea, I accept that fact that it's not perfect. I also accept the fact that I have a better chance of seeing world peace in my lifetime than of seeing the owners agreeing to a plan such as this. Keeping in mind that, over thirty years later, the owners still can't be of one mind when it comes to the DH, it could take centuries for the owners to just consider such a re-alignment. Probably the only scenario I could imagine whereby the owners would adopt a plan such as the one above would be if a major TV network offered to triple their broadcast fees payment in exchange for such a re-alignment. But, despite the odds, there you have one man's dream of how MLB could vastly improve its product by keeping the exciting regional rivalry games and making the World Series special again.

I don't see any switching of the league format or any new expansion teams for the foreseeable future. I could see both Florida teams and possibly the Arizona and/or KC francises moving. I think this setup would be better:

For the playoffs just keep the current 3 division winners + 1 wildcard for each league. For interleague play I would set it up like the NFL does it for teams playing against the other conference. Ex: The AL east teams play the NL East teams one year. Next year the AL East teams play the NL Central teams. Following year the AL East teams play the NL West teams. Just repeat the cycle every 3 years.